News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions
Internet
Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet
Articles (2006)
Internet Articles
(2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)
Books
Books
Order
Books
|
|
Videos of the week—
Raw
AP news feed from 2 News.TV
Supreme Court rules in favor of gun rights
Editor's Note: This story is so important, I did not have time to write the Jon Christian Ryter version of it.. I grabbed the raw AP story that appears on the website of the CBS affiliate in Boise, Idaho, 2 News.TV. This is not a Jon Christian Ryter article.
By Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.
The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest. Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
Are your brand new tires really old tires?
You planned this year's family vacation for the better part of a year. As V-day nears, you do the "dime" test on your tires and decide the tread is just a little too worn for a worry-free trip halfway across the country to visit family members. You jump into the conversion van and drive to the local tire shop for a set of brand new tires. Only, 500 miles into your trip, the tread on one of the tires separates, giving the family a scare as you battle to keep your suddenly out-of-control van from flipping over in the median.
When
the family climbs out of the van to check the damage, everyone notes that
the tread separated and peeled completely off one of those brand new tires.
The first thought that comes to your mind? Remembering last's years headlines
about defective tires made in China, you think, we got stuck with some
Chinese tires. Not so. You simply bought "old" new tires.
If you were a resident of the European Union, you can kneel down and look at your tires and see the date they were manufactured. In Europe, the manufacture code is at the end of the long line of numbers that identify the tire size. You will see a series of numbers that will look something like this: P195/60R15 87Q 345. What do the numbers mean? "P" stands for "passenger vehicle. "195" is the width of the tire in millimeters. "60" is the aspect ratio (the ratio of the height of the tire to the width). "R" means it is a radial tire. "15" represents the wheel diameter in inches. "87" is the load index and "Q" is the speed rating of the tire.
Prior to 2000 the tire manufacture date was a three digit code. Beginning in 2000 it became a four digit date. Therefore, "345" tells you the tire was made in the 34th week of 1995. If you just bought those tires it means you purchased "new" tires that were actually 18 years old when you put them on our vehicle. The tragedy is that when you go to your local Firestone™, Dunlop™, Bridgestone™, Pep Boys, Sears—or anywhere tires are sold in your town—you pick the brand and style of tire that is going on your car, but you don't get to physically inspect the tires that are going on your car to see when the tire was made. Its not likely the salesman who sold you your new tires, or even the tire jockey putting those tires on your car has the answer to that question either since, in the United States, every tire manufacturer puts the manufacture date on the inside of the tire where it can't be seen. If you want to know when the tires on your vehicle were manufactured, you will have to lay down and look under your car at the reverse side of the tire.
In Europe, all of the numbers on the tire are visible to the consumer when they bend down and look the sidewall of the tires on their vehicles. In the United States, the tire lobby has done a good job of bribing Congressmen and Senators with campaign contributions. While most of the laws politicians pass for the transnational industrialists, barons of business and the merchant princes merely cost you money, in this case, the "innocent" political quid pro quo of allowing tire manufacturers to bury the tire manufacture date code on the backside of the tire where you can't see it can cost you or a loved one their life. Think about that the next time the media tells you that you should vote for a political candidate because he or she raised $50 million dollars to finance their campaign. We need the tire manufacture code on the front side of the tire with the other Tire Identification Codes, and we need political contributions (i.e., legal bribes) outlawed.
